User talk:Leafy46

This is Leafy46's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

Your GA nomination of XXX 88

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article XXX 88 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Locust member -- Locust member (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of XXX 88

The article XXX 88 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:XXX 88 for comments about the article, and Talk:XXX 88/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Locust member -- Locust member (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Teenagers (song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Teenagers (song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cancer (song)

On 10 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cancer (song), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the My Chemical Romance song "Cancer" was written in eight minutes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cancer (song). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cancer (song)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skylines and Turnstiles

I love My Chemical Romance, but I was not even aware the song had an article until I checked the GAN page today. This would make me the perfect person to review it if my schedule frees up. It would be irresponsible of me to take it right at the moment - I have an open FAC and I've got a GAR which is almost at kept - but consider this a message of intent to review it so long as nobody takes it before my two priorities are completed, which I would consider anyone welcome to if they so wish to. mftp dan ^oops 17:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan: Got it, thanks! I really admire all the work you've put into rock articles throughout the last decade-or-so, so I look forward to working with you if the situation works out :) Leafy46 (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, my GAR has closed as a keep! I notice that you have another on review; would you like me to wait or just go ahead and take it? mftp dan ^oops 16:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan: Congratulations on the reassessment! Please go ahead, the reviewer on the other article has not posted anything for a few weeks now and I'm itching to get one of my nominations off my list :) Leafy46 (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Skylines and Turnstiles

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Skylines and Turnstiles you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MFTP Dan -- MFTP Dan (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Skylines and Turnstiles

The article Skylines and Turnstiles you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Skylines and Turnstiles and Talk:Skylines and Turnstiles/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MFTP Dan -- MFTP Dan (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Skylines and Turnstiles

The article Skylines and Turnstiles you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Skylines and Turnstiles for comments about the article, and Talk:Skylines and Turnstiles/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of MFTP Dan -- MFTP Dan (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Headfirst for Halos" release date source

Hi, in this edit to the page for "Headfirst for Halos", you added a source to back up the single's release date on April 5, 2004. However, I cannot seem to actually find any mention of the song in source provided, let alone on page 27. Infact, I actually checked the source for the release date of "Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us" as well, and I can't find the song mentioned there as well. Is there something I'm missing here? λ NegativeMP1 20:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1: On page 27 of the magazine (not of the PDF), the song title is listed under the "Singles" section of "New Releases"; unfortunately, the PDF doesn't ctrl+f very well, but here's a screenshot for proof: link. It should be the same for "Honey", but let me know if you can't find the date on the source! Leafy46 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it appears that it's just 4 pages ahead for the PDF version, being on page 31 instead of 27. I feel like maybe the reference should be adjusted in that case, but oh well. Thanks for the help! λ NegativeMP1 20:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed why you asked this question. Good luck with getting Bullets up to GA! Your re-write of it looks pretty solid, though it could probably use a proofread; nothing that couldn't be addressed in a GA review, though. Leafy46 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm still working on some final details and a coypyedit before I take it to GAN. Also, I think I'm gonna rewrite the article for "Headfirst for Halos" as well quite soon (further stalling my FLW and WTTBP rewrites lol), which combined with your work on the three other songs from the album should allow for the creation of a GT exclusively about Bullets. Assuming everything passes, that is. λ NegativeMP1 21:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1: Of course, makes sense. It shouldn't be too bad, I think I've collected pretty much every reliable source on Bullets on the internet between the three articles I've rewritten lol, so it's just a deal of searching for the right information among them. Leafy46 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Headfirst is done and is currently at GAN. Also, I have decided to make an article for "Demolition Lovers" (also at GAN now) since good topics require that every article that can exist in a specific field exist, and I feel that the song has just barely enough for an article. I also don't want to risk the future GTC possibly failing (based on what I've seen from past GTCs, people can be very insistent on this sort of thing). Anywho, I'm keeping track of the topic here incase you're interested. λ NegativeMP1 06:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1: Good to know! I'm a bit worried that they are also going to ask for "Romance" to be GA'd, however, given that it *is* listed and linked in the track listing. Leafy46 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I pray that they won't be that cruel. λ NegativeMP1 16:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us

The article Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us and Talk:Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Medxvo -- Medxvo (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us

The article Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us for comments about the article, and Talk:Honey, This Mirror Isn't Big Enough for the Two of Us/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Medxvo -- Medxvo (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chili

Who else would nominate the article? I am making it better. Also what constitutes as making major edits. Engage01 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Engage01: If you read the nomination instructions, which are included in the template I've sent your way, you'll see that a nominator who "is either the author of less than 10% of the article or ranked sixth or lower in authorship" is not fit to nominate an article for GA. Looking at the article's contributors, your username is not listed at all, and thus I've removed the nomination as a drive-by; in contrast, a user like Popcornfud or Jason1978, who have both written more than 10% of the article, would be more fit to nominate it. The reason this is important is because an article becoming a GA is not just a surface-level thing. It's necessary (and arguably more important) to deeply know the article's sources, and to verify that they support what is written in the article (and that doesn't even begin to mention how there are a lot of valid Citation Needed templates on the article, which would need to be resolved before a nomination is even considered). All in all, while I appreciate the enthusiasm, I hope you understand why I've decided to remove your nomination! Leafy46 (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at what you have put on the talk page. Are you reviewing articles some of the time? If I am guessing you haven't been a reviewer yet. Engage01 (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

popcornfud hasn't been on there since Sept., hasn't been on Wikipedia at all. Engage01 (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason1978 isn't coming back. I would suppose that the portal pages are used to develop articles. Engage01 (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia pretty much every day for a decade, heheh. Popcornfud (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, help me fix RHCP. No one sees much on there. Engage01 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this pf or Elmer Fudd? Engage01 (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Engage01: Is that a personal attack against Popcornfud I detect on my talk page? Let me remind you that anything you publish is saved in an article's history, so deleting it in a later edit does nothing but make it look like there's something to hide.

That aside, if you truly want to help and fix up the page for RHCP, then demanding a user to help you and refusing to take advice are not typically the best ways to go about it. As mentioned, I'd highly recommend first working through the Citation Needed templates on the article: for instance, I spot a relatively easy one next to the statement "[Californication] was later listed at number 399 on the Rolling Stone magazine list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time". According to this source, it actually placed at #401; by fixing up that line and including a citation to that source, you'd be improving the article in a way which meaningfully brings it closer to GA. Hope this helps give you a direction! Leafy46 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I find all of the cn's, I will re-submit the article. Engage01 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Engage01: That's definitely a good start, and is a measurable way to improve the article. However, I'd be remiss if I didn't suggest getting more experience with editing before you nominate any article for GA, especially one of this scope. The sourcing being accurate is a great place to start, after all, but beyond that it's all about writing prose which is up to standard; for instance, there is a "Focuses too much on specific examples" template underneath the artistry section which is still unquestionably applicable, and that's not something which can really be resolved without a good amount of experience in writing for Wikipedia. I hope that you don't see this as discouraging, and that you instead see this as encouragement to work on other articles first! Every Wikipedian has needed to start somewhere, but I have seen the struggles of users who have bitten off more than they can chew. Leafy46 (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leafy, I'd like it if you stay on a topic. Actually let's stop talking for a bit. You're too unusual for me right now. Engage01 (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kire is being a problem. Could you please get him to stop? Engage01 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Engage01: Uh... while I'm flattered that you'd come for me for help, I'm not a hitman. I can't, and won't, step in in this situation to take care of a "problem", especially since I don't have full context of what happened. However, let me remind/tell you that a large part of Wikipedia's goals is to reach WP:CONSENSUS, and not to simply dominate over those you disagree with. I'd highly suggest reading this article, given that it seems relevant to your current situation: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I'd also be aware of WP:NOTHERE, given that you don't want to be hit by a "Treating editing as a battleground"; dispute resolution and yielding is much more preferable than a fight. Leafy46 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kire is being impossible. I found the commons mention, I made the edits they're referencing. They seem to want to talk with me and I have no interest. Engage01 (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kire1975 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of I'm Not Okay (I Promise)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article I'm Not Okay (I Promise) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LastJabberwocky -- LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Vampires Will Never Hurt You

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vampires Will Never Hurt You you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Vampires Will Never Hurt You

The article Vampires Will Never Hurt You you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article needs changes or clarifications to meet the good article criteria. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Vampires Will Never Hurt You and Talk:Vampires Will Never Hurt You/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Vampires Will Never Hurt You

On 26 February 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vampires Will Never Hurt You, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Gerard Way got dental work midway through the recording session for "Vampires Will Never Hurt You"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vampires Will Never Hurt You. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Vampires Will Never Hurt You), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Vampires Will Never Hurt You

The article Vampires Will Never Hurt You you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vampires Will Never Hurt You for comments about the article, and Talk:Vampires Will Never Hurt You/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Kyle Peake -- Kyle Peake (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of I'm Not Okay (I Promise)

The article I'm Not Okay (I Promise) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:I'm Not Okay (I Promise) for comments about the article, and Talk:I'm Not Okay (I Promise)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of LastJabberwocky -- LastJabberwocky (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Perfect Celebrity

Hello, Leafy46,

Thank you for creating Perfect Celebrity.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The article's sources do not yet reflect significant coverage of the song outside of the context of coverage of the album as a whole, or reviews of the project. See WP:NSONG for the specific guideline. "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|RachelTensions}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

RachelTensions (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RachelTensions: Hello there! I would like to point out that, since your primary concern is notability, there are already three news pieces sourced in the article which speak of the song mostly independent of the album:

Harper's Bazaar, which focuses on the song and its lyrics despite some tangential references to Mayhem
Nylon, which has a similar scope to the Harper's Bazaar article above, and has some different observations about the lyrics
NME, which boils down a broader interview into information specifically about the song

The Billboard review of the album also ranked it the best song on the album, devoting the largest chunk of it to "Perfect Celebrity" in specific; however, this is technically in the context of an album review, so while it is non-trivial, I agree that it doesn't work towards establishing notability.

There are also a few other sources which I *could* add, but they'd likely repeat information or critical observations already in the article, and are less reliable per WP:RSP to boot (though none are strictly unreliable):

Capital FM, which does a lyrical analysis similar to those in Harper's Bazaar and Nylon
Bustle, which provides a lyrical analysis similar to the above sources, though with unclear reliability
Vice, which is another re-hash of the interview, but is less reliable than NME
Screen Rant, which also ranks it as the best song on the album (with a decent chunk devoted to the track itself), but with questionable reliability

WP:NSONG notes that songs are probably notable if they are the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works". I hope that the ones already in the article are sufficient to prove this point, but let me know if you want me to add in some of these others just to make the song's notability unquestionable. Leafy46 (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Perfect Celebrity

Hello! Your submission of Perfect Celebrity at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! lullabying (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Perfect Celebrity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Capital FM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:My Chemical Romance - Welcome to the Black Parade.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:My Chemical Romance - Welcome to the Black Parade.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Teenagers (song)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Teenagers (song) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PSA -- PSA (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loudersound redirect

About this edit, made by Leafy46 (that I redirected to Future plc)

Please, I would like to ask, Where should this another redirect link to ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudersound?redirect=no

@Bait30 @Steel1943 @Dmehus @Sergecross73 @Ringerfan23 @Hiddenstranger @SteveStrummer

Thanks to all Alex2ruiz (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say wherever it's discussed in more detail. Sergecross73 msg me 11:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex2ruiz: Hello, sorry that I missed this! I agree with Sergecross73 above, I just missed the fact that there were two redirects changed here (given that I only redirected back "Louder Sound" after noticing that it was changed while drafting a separate article). In essence, while the page for Future plc does not mention it, the one for Classic Rock (magazine) does, and thus I believe the redirect should go there. Leafy46 (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leafy46: OK, thanks for your explanation.

Please, if you would be so kind, could you change the following redirects?

The same edition, made on the Louder Sound

Thank you

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) has an RfC

Wikipedia talk:Notability (music) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Flip^and Flopped ツ 18:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Thacker birthyear

Hi!

Every year around musician Tom Thacker's birthday, there seems to be a battle of Wikipedia edits regarding his birthyear. For some reason, his birthyear keeps getting edited to anything between 1974 and 1978. His correct birthyear is 1973, he celebrated his 40th birthday in 2013, and 50th in 2023. I know Tom personally, I have attended his birthday party, and I have confirmed his birthyear both from himself and two of his close friends (as every year it made me second guess myself because of all the Wikipedia edits).

Today, I edited his Wikipedia page to correct his birthyear to 1973. Later on the same day, I noticed that it had been changed back, so I edited it again, this time adding a hidden note asking people not to edit it to anything else than 1973. Now it seems it has been changed back again, and I have been blocked from making further edits and got a "Level 2" warning.

I apologise if my behavior has been against the rules, but it is frustrating that my friend's info keeps getting incorrectly changed. Even one of the cites used for his birthday is an article about his wedding in 2013, where his age is mentioned correctly. I hope his birthyear would be fixed to 1973, and myself getting reinsated.

Best regards, Tomi 62.248.207.76 (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, I have responded on the IP's talk page here in order for them to be notified of it (given that pings don't work for IPs per Template:Reply to). Leafy46 (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I understand the need to use reliable sources. The link you provided is one of the two instances where his exact age has been mentioned publicly. The other one, already cited as a source for his marriage (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/17/fashion/weddings/their-harmony-is-loud-and-clear.html), (unfortunately it is now behind a paywall, but you can quickly copy/paste the text to a text editor to read it), is published November 15, 2013 (and is being referred to in the other story you mentioned). There's a quote: "“But instead I started locking myself in my room with my guitar,” said Tom Thacker, now 40. Punk rock was his preferred genre."

So to sum up, there are two public sources about his age. Both say that he's 40, one is published 2013, one a year later. But, since from a public eye it's a coin toss, and one article is behind a paywall, I don't blame you for choosing 1974. Unfortunately I can't provide any more reliable proof than this, so I guess we need to wait until another interview is being made of him.

Thank you anyway! 62.248.207.76 (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bulletproof Heart single status

No idea if this is relevant to you or not, especially since this song didn't have an article to begin with and I don't know if you were ever going to make one, but I recently went through and changed "Bulletproof Heart"'s status from a single to a promotional single, similarly to what just recently happened with "Thank You for the Venom". A full explanation is here. Just figured I should let you know since you alerted me about TYFTV's changed status. In other news, I'm about to create an article for "The Kids from Yesterday" that should hopefully be done before too long. λ NegativeMP1 07:30, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1: Thanks for the update! However, "Bulletproof Heart" was definitely released as a single: you can see it being released to radio here, and it is listed as a "Key Release" here (on page 20). This, alongside having original cover art, firmly places it as a single per WP:SINGLE?.

On the other note, I was planning on putting together a "The Kids for Yesterday" page once I'm done with this busy season of schoolwork/GANs, esp. since I'm planning on going through Danger Days' songs before circling back to The Black Parade. However, if you're going to put that page together, then I'm probably going to go into "Na Na Na" instead :) Leafy46 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure whether or not you were going to create it because of your school-inactivity notice. But if this means anything, I have zero plans to touch anything else related to Danger Days except for the album article itself at a later date. And that's only out of obligation so I can create a good topic for MCR's studio albums. You have free reign to do whatever else when it comes to articles for Danger Days and I probably won't contribute much, if any. λ NegativeMP1 18:15, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I don't want to come across as me "owning" the rights to make the page, if that's why you're staying away from Danger Days. Otherwise, I'm gunning for the MDNSY good topic, and "The Kids of Yesterday" is included in the tracklist, so I'll definitely get to it eventually. Leafy46 (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, it's not that at all. It's because I never planned on doing much with Danger Days to begin with. It's the only album I don't plan on trying to make a topic out of and I decided that as soon as I planned out topics for the other three albums. I'm going to avoid expressing my own opinions too much since I don't want it to come off as impacting the content I work on, but I honestly could care less for a lot of songs from Danger Days (for example, I couldn't be bothered to write about "Sing"), and I don't want to touch articles like Conventional Weapons (would probably fall within scope given it was basically proto-Danger Days) or The World Contamination Tour with a ten foot pole. And given the songs from the album that I would actually feel passionate to write about probably don't pass notability ("S/C/A/R/E/C/R/O/W", "Vampire Money"), my interest is practically zero. Or at least, nowhere near as much as Three Cheers or Bullets. λ NegativeMP1 18:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page created. I'm also on the fence about whether or not "Bulletproof Heart" could get an article, leaning more towards no but it also really bothers me that it is the only single from their discography that doesn't have an article (not favoritism towards the song, I just hate that it disrupts the infobox navigation) and I refuse to believe there isn't something for it out there. In other news, I think "Vampire Money" might actually be feasible now since I found some coverage regarding the context of why it was made. Thoughts? λ NegativeMP1 04:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1: I'm not really convinced about either song in this case. I knew "Vampire Money" had a bit of potential because of this Elle article, but that's really it as far as independent coverage on the song goes. Everything else I found is either not reliable or a part of wider coverage regarding the album, and the song hasn't been listed in many rankings or certified unlike "Dead!". The same goes with "Bulletproof Heart"; it was undoubtedly a single, but independent coverage on it is practically nonexistent. This isn't helped by the fact that neither song charted, nor had a music video released to bring in some press.

That being said, though, I certainly would not object to either article being created if you have identified enough sources for either! I'm also just losing steam on working with MCR articles (especially after my nomination of Teenagers was failed), and I'm really just gunning for a MDNSY good topic at this point (i.e. I probably would not be of much help for developing a "Vampire Money" or "Bulletproof Heart" article). On that note, congrats on bringing "Welcome to the Black Parade" to GAN, and let me know if I can be of any more help in the meantime :) Leafy46 (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the feedback regarding both ideas. You're probably right. I even think that "Disenchanted" probably had more coverage. I'm sure I'll get to summarize both enough once I rewrite the album article for Danger Days in 500 years. And yeah I saw that Teenagers was failed, I'm sorry that happened. I probably would've been willing to help out but I'm not sure what I could have done (but if you ever tried to get back to it let me know). And I completely understand the losing steam thing as a result - burn out combined with real life responsibilities is something I encounter pretty frequently. Let me know if I can help you with any more of the remaining articles on the MDNSY topic. I'll probably get to them all at one point or another anyways even if you don't given that I'm aiming for topics on all but one of the albums (at this point I'm more dedicated towards the album topics than the MDNSY topic), so it'd just be a matter of changing the order of how I tackle the articles. λ NegativeMP1 05:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, and thank you for the offer! I'm also just kinda busy with finals seasons at school lol, so that's certainly not helping the whole burnout thing. I'm sure that I'll be back in form once the summer arrives, though, and hopefully I can knock out the topic during that period. Leafy46 (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Perfect Celebrity

On 15 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Perfect Celebrity, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lady Gaga considered changing Mayhem into a grunge record after completing "Perfect Celebrity"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Perfect Celebrity. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Perfect Celebrity), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

SL93 (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Teenagers (song)

The article Teenagers (song) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Teenagers (song) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PSA -- PSA (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tough luck moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Tough luck, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt: Hey there! Out of question, does the link on the disambiguation page for the article of Luck not count as an "existing article"? It's a common English idiom, after all, (as evidenced by the Wiktionary entry), and it's not like it's the only thing on the page. Otherwise, I could probably throw smth quick together for the Laufey song, but it'd just be an extra step. Leafy46 (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Tough luck has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tough luck. Thanks! Dan arndt (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tough luck (May 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Tough luck and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leafy46! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]